British news agency Reuters’ report on regional elections in Russia has ignored the overall result of United Russia, homing in on the party’s loss of a third of its seats in the Moscow city assembly. Reuters then contemplated a possible “beginning of the end” for Vladimir Putin, speculated on Putin’s downfall in the 2024 presidential elections and made an unwarranted comparison to Erdoğan’s election losses in Ankara and Istanbul.

Other influential Western media have furthered these false conclusions and presented Alexei Navalny as a hero of the elections, although he is a marginal figure in Russia and his only goal is to delegitimise the elections. Navalny actually avoided running both in the 2019 regional and 2018 Moscow mayoral elections (but this exposure in the West will certainly bring him new grants on account of working towards Putin’s alleged downfall).

Disproof

These false claims were spread across two complementary reports of Sputnik Serbia, published on September 14th (“How Putin “lost” the elections in Moscow”) and September 15th (“The West is rejoicing Putin’s decline, but what really happened”).

Reuters’ report on the results of regional elections in Russia, published on September 9th, does not mention Putin’s “downfall”, nor did Reuters compare Putin to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in this, or any other report on the results of the regional elections held on September 8th in Russia.

Reuters also didn’t focus only on United Russia’s loss of seats in Moscow. The report states that the party “retained its majority in the Moscow assembly following Sunday’s nationwide local elections, and its candidates for regional governor appeared to have won in St Petersburg and in 15 other parts of the vast country.” The same point is reiterated in the video clip embedded in the article. The video report provides a statement of Alexei Navalny, but also that of Andrey Turchak, the chairman of United Russia, who said that the party’s overall result was “more than positive” and “has exceeded our most optimistic forecasts”.

The claim that Alexei Navalny is “unwilling to run” in the elections is blatantly false. The Russian Central Electoral Commission has barred Navalny from running in the 2018 presidential elections, based on a conviction in a politically motivated trial (see EEAS statement on the case here). Navalny’s party was prevented from registering for the elections 9 times. This includes the 2019 regional elections, when an old trick was reused to deem their registration invalid - another party’s name was changed into “Russia of the Future”, the name of Navalny’s party, providing an excuse to bar them from the ballot. About 30 opposition candidates also had their registrations refused in the elections for Moscow city council, sparking mass protests and arrests, including that of opposition candidates and Navalny himself.

The claim that Navalny receives “grants” for his political engagement is another instance of a Kremlin disinformation narrative about Russian opposition parties, politicians and/or protestors being “puppets of the West” (see similar cases here and here).

There is no official position in Chisinau that would deny support to Kyiv. The Ukraine - Russia gas transit contract expires in January 2020. In this context, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu, said that there is a risk that from January 1, 2020 the Republic of Moldova will remain without Russian gas, if Ukraine will prohibit its transit on its territory. This specified that Chisinau has solutions in case of cessation.

There is only one way to stop the Americanisation of Ukraine: to issue Russian passports to all Ukrainian citizens. This will be the end for the existence of the country.

September 24, 2019

Disproof

This is another Kremlin narrative that Ukraine is under the full control of the United States. Ukraine is a sovereign state whose territorial integrity and independence is recognised by both the United States and the European Union. The EU and the US do not control Ukraine.

Ukraine itself has chosen the western course of development by joining the Eastern Partnership program for cooperation with the European Union, the Association Agreement with the EU, creating a free trade zone, liberalising the visa regime with the EU, developing the energy sector and maintaining stability, security in the region and much more.

In the European Union, they thought about creating their own unified army to confront the United States. The EU feels threatened by the Americans, says the report of the European Court of Auditors and the EU’s own army will be designed to protect it from all directions, especially the USA.

September 24, 2019

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin narrative about the possible European army. In the report of the European Court of Auditors, cited by the Russian media, there is not a single mention that the European Union, through the creation of the unified army, is allegedly preparing to defend itself from the United States. Instead, the first paragraph emphasises that the impetus for the development of defence in the EU was given by Russian aggression against Ukraine. It stipulates that the annexation of Crimea by Russia, the development of transatlantic relations, the strengthening and diversification of security threats and the return of competition between leading states have given a new impetus to EU defence cooperation.

Moreover, the report emphasises that before the start of Russian aggression in Ukraine, the collective defence spending of the EU member states was declining from year to year, and the trend towards an increase in spending appeared only relatively recently. For the next six years, the period from 2021 to 2027, the European Commission proposes to increase funding for foreign policy and defence initiatives to 22.5 billion euros. For comparison, from 2014 to 2020, the amount was 2.8 billion euros.

don't be deceived, question even more

Share your feedback with us

Disclaimer

Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.